The Hawks have the 15th pick in the upcoming NBA Draft, and one of the collegians who Atlanta may be watching is Sam Dekker, a forward from the University of Wisconsin. Dekker averaged an efficient 13.9 points and 5.5 rebounds in an offense that savored deliberate possessions, and he helped lead Wisconsin to a 36-4 record and a 1-seed in the NCAA Tournament.
In their most recent mock drafts, Draft Express and NBA.com both had the 21-year-old going to Boston with the #16 pick, while SB Nation pegged him to go to Memphis with the #25 pick.
Dekker stood 6'9" in shoes, weighed 219 pounds, and had his wingspan measured at 6'11.5" at the NBA Draft Combine in May.
To find out more about Dekker, Hawks.com sought a few answers from Nick Whalen, assistant NBA editor at RotoWire, writer at Bucksketball, and recent UW grad.
Q: What does Sam Dekker do well?
Whalen: Dekker is one of those players who doesn't have one or two elite skills. Instead, he does a lot of things well. He's a very good athlete for his size, and he can handle the ball, pass, rebound and finish in transition. But, again, he doesn't necessarily do any of those things at the level that makes you say "this guy could be a big-time star at the next level." The biggest question is whether he'll be able to shoot the ball well enough at the NBA level to open up the rest of his offensive game.
Q: How does his game translate to the NBA?
Whalen: Wisconsin certainly isn't known for pumping out NBA players (shoutout Michael Finley), but I think Dekker's game actually translates well to the pro level. He doesn't fit the typical Wisconsin mold, and I think playing in a different system may have better showcased his skills in the open court and as an attacker. The Badgers' methodical style was somewhat of a contrast to Dekker's best skills, and I think the openness of the NBA game will give him more room to operate. That said, despite being a three-year college player, he's a guy who will require an adjustment period. The fact that he seems to be slipping into the late-lottery/mid-first round on most mock drafts might be a good thing, as he'd likely end up on a better team that can afford to bring him along slowly.
Q: What can he do to improve?
Whalen: By far the biggest knock on Dekker is his inconsistent play during the regular season. He was probably already a household name before the Tournament, but that's when he truly burst onto the scene as a potential lottery pick. My concern, as someone whose watched nearly all of his regular season games over the past few years, is that much of the national audience only saw those explosive performances against North Carolina, Arizona and Kentucky.
What they didn't see was Dekker scoring two points on 1-of-5 shooting against Marquette or six points on 2-of-7 shooting against Purdue. In the college game, for a number of reasons, it's far more common for a star player to have an off night than it is in the NBA, but Dekker's "off nights" aren't necessarily games in which he plays poorly; they're games in which he disappears. That's a major concern to me. He needs to improve most from a confidence standpoint to ensure that he's still bringing something to the table, even if he might not have it going offensively. Outside of that, three-point shooting remains an issue. He hit some huge threes in the Tournament, but he was only a 33 percent shooter during the regular season.
Q: What style of play suits his game best?
Whalen: Fortunately for viewers, Dekker isn't going to find an NBA team that matches the system in which he played at Wisconsin. Even though Bo Ryan's teams have grown increasingly watchable over the last few years, the Badgers still played at the sixth-slowest pace (346th overall) in the country last season, averaging only 61.1 possessions per game. Given his athleticism and transition skills, I think Dekker will be better-suited to play a more uptempo style, but he also has extensive experience operating in a system predicated on working for quality shots in the half-court. The Badgers were the most efficient team in college basketball last season, per KenPom.com, and Dekker is not a player GMs will have to worry about from a decision-making standpoint.
Q: To which current or past NBA player would you compare him?
Whalen: The most common comparison I've seen is Gordon Hayward, which makes a lot of sense. Dekker is a better athlete than Hayward, but Hayward is the better shooter and more polished all-around offensive player.
I think an even better comparison might be Wilson Chandler. Their measurables are nearly identical, and both players prefer to operate off the dribble. Chandler is a career 34% three-point shooter, which seems about right for Dekker given his college numbers, and, like Dekker, Chandler rebounds well for his position while providing modest assist numbers.